Date Published: January 4, 2006   

Poor school districts shouldn’t expect much relief

There’s good news and bad news for the plaintiffs and defendants affected by last week’s ruling by 3rd Circuit Judge Thomas W. Cooper in the school funding suit.

Judge Cooper ruled that the state, as defendants in the suit, had not met the constitutional requirement of offering the opportunity of a “minimally adequate education” in early childhood years for every child in South Carolina.

That was the good news for the plaintiffs, who represented eight rural and poor districts that included Lee County schools.

But the good news for the plaintiffs was tempered by the other part of the ruling, which declared facilities in the districts are “safe and adequate,” and that curriculum standards and the system of teacher certification are adequate. Bad news for the plaintiffs, good news for attorneys representing the state.

In short, a mixed bag for both parties.

The battle over school funding in South Carolina has been a long and expensive exercise costing taxpayers $3.7 million in attorneys’ fees in defense of the state’s school system during the two years of litigation and the plaintiffs $6.8 million in legal fees so far — $10.5 million.

Now comes the hard part: What does it all mean?

Will the state, barring an appeal of Cooper’s decision, now decide to correct the lack of early childhood education in the poor districts by acting to provide statewide kindergartens in the public schools, which in the view of Sen. John C. Land, D-Manning, will cost at least $150 million? And where will the state Legislature find the funding as key lawmakers are increasingly focusing on tax relief?

Both Land and state Rep. Grady Brown, D-Bishopville, are pessimistic about the Republican-controlled General Assembly suddenly becoming galvanized over the plight of poor, cash-strapped rural districts and rushing to their rescue. With a total of 50 years experience as legislators between them, the veteran lawmakers are less than sanguine about the prospects of educational reform happening anytime soon within the Statehouse. They know how laborious that process can be for the General Assembly.

As Land put it, “My experience in the 32 years in the General Assembly is that we’ll put a little patch on it and walk away and leave it.” Or Brown: “I’d like to think the Legislature will go ahead and address the situation ... Do I think it will be addressed this year? Probably not. The haves will have to give the have-nots some money.”

Unfortunately, the have-nots, meaning the poor, rural school districts, shouldn’t hold their breaths expecting more funding from the state. That is the reality of politics in South Carolina, and it’s lamentable.

Given that reality, educators, parents, students and other supporters will have to learn to make do with less. If there is a better solution short of substantial tax increases, we haven’t heard it. And tax increases are never popular among legislators, especially during an election year, which happens to be this year.